« Bacon of Freedom | Main | Africa, AIDS and Adding On to ABC »

May 10, 2005

Comments

Too bad Ms. Pelosi couldn't stand with other Democrats and vote down 1268. If anyone had the support in her district to hold up appropriations in order to rid that bill of the precursors to a National ID card, she did.

Then again, perhaps she supports a National ID card system, I couldn't find anything about it on her site.

"Personally, I'm impressed with both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. "

It's impressive that Reid referred to the President as a loser, while other Democrats were calling on the President to tone down the rhetoric?

Personally, I don't really call that good leadership.

I can't believe you are supporting that kind of politcial discourse.

I wonder if it's okay if someone referred to you as a loser. And if you would then say that would qualify one for being a leader.

I think if the shoe where on the other foot, you would be crying and whining about how poor that kind of behavior was. But, then that's just a guess...

Tinker,

I see Pelosi and Reid merely as the opening act. Why Reid said what he did is totally overshadowed by the fact that he called the President to apologize. What more do you expect of your leadership? That they never make mistakes in the first place? Good luck with that.

Edward--

I like Reid and Pelosi as well, and I even liked it when Reid called Bush a loser. (Bush sent his minions out to say much worse about Kerry last year).

But if I thought this was all part of a plot to restore Bill Clinton to prominence, I would be much less enthusiastic.

I voted for him twice, and I agreed with many of his political positions. But when someone lies repeatedly to a grand jury and breaks faith with the American people, he loses my support, forever. One of the most despicable things about the Rove/Bush/DeLay gang is their utter contempt for the truth, and I despised that aspect of "Bubba" just as much.

Tinker, here's a good compare-and-contrast between how Reid acted after publicly calling the President a "loser," and how the Vice-President acted after telling a sitting Senator, on the Senate floor, to "go fuck himself." You tell me who's showing better leadership.

Timker-

The shoe has been on the other foot and the Republicans have often been far less gracious than these Democrats are today. The coarseness and personalization of battle have been taken up with relish by each side at times.

Tad,

I don't think I'd vote for Bubba again either, but he's perhaps the most brilliant mind the Democrats have and I'm more than happy to have him orchestrating things.

Dionne slipped past most of the obvious, but the laugher is..."Essential to their quest is persuading Democrats, or at least a significant number in their ranks, to accept long-term minority status." It's not the Republicans doing the persuading, it's the American people. Given the tabloid nature of main stream press today, let's frame it this way. Reid and Pelosi are Moe and Larry. Then Boxer, Biden and Schumer can represent the rotation of Curly. Throw in a little W.C. Kennedy and you have the caricature of the Democratic Party to the American people at the moment.

blogbudsman, nearly half -- in fact, a number statistically indistinguishable from exactly half -- of Americans voted for that party in the last election; and what's more, that minority number of Senators and Representatives represents a higher proportion of actual human beings than the majority party does,

But seriously, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Enough seats in 2006, and we may get another impeachment.

Edward,

I'm happy that we agree on something. I'm thrilled with the choices of Pelosi and Reid. Reid is particularly awesome.

Kindest Regards,

Mac

Mac and Blog...

glad you're enjoying the opening act...stay distracted for us, will ya?

that minority number of Senators and Representatives represents a higher proportion of actual human beings than the majority party does

Hard to imagine that anyone's gone so far as to count. As I've pointed out, that Senators represent one party over the other is irrelevant, even if true. Representatives, however, you're going to have to actually count, and then find out what percentage of votes each got, and then come to some conclusion. Even then, Representatives are supposed to represent their constituency, regardless of party.
In summary, your point is half irrelevant and the other half has yet to be shown where I could see it, and also possibly irrelevant.

A larger, more salient, more accurate and more supportable point would be that the vote was very, very, very close to 50%, popularity-wise, which means that roughly half the country doesn't like Bush as much as they were willing to grit their teeth and vote for John Kerry.

I only say that last because ISTR that in earlier polls, any unnammed Democratic candidate did better against Bush than the actual election. And no, I don't maintain that means very much, outside of its humor value.

As I've pointed out, that Senators represent one party over the other is irrelevant, even if true.

A fairly bizarre statement, at least from a real-world perspective.

Harsh, Macallan, very harsh (& funny). Have you considered changing your name to a peatier malt?

I think the details on Reid & Pelosi aren't so attractive as is merely the fact that the Dems aren't rolling over, astonishing to Dem-watchers everywhere.

Nevertheless, it seems to this Mississippi-bound commenter that even another Massachusetts liberal would be better than Hillary. I think she can do the job if she gets it, but the Dems need lots of swing voters who would swallow cyanide rather than vote for Hillary.

Does anyone out there think that the same U.S. who wouldn't vote for Kerry after 4 years of Bush would actually vote for Hillary? Explain, please.

A fairly bizarre statement, at least from a real-world perspective.

How relevant is it how many Democrats are in the state of Wyoming vs the state of California, when it comes to the roll call?

...in the Senate, I meant to ask.

Does anyone out there think that the same U.S. who wouldn't vote for Kerry after 4 years of Bush would actually vote for Hillary?

This assumes Hillary is running for President. Hillary could make an excellent VP on a Southerner's ticket.

Edward, I think little could maximize Republican turnout on election day more than having Hillary on the ticket.

Perhaps Slarti...we'll see. They thought that in Upstate New York as well...things change.

If it's Hillary and Frist (or a similiar Rep. candidate) then times will be ripe for a third party. Hagel may not get the rep. candidacy but a Hagel/Powell or some other strange combo could really catch America's fancy.

Have you considered changing your name to a peatier malt?

My real name is Laphroaig...

Oh, and those of you "thrilled" with Reid's leadership will LOVE this...(from Kos) Reid to Frist:

I believe there are two options for avoiding the nuclear showdown, which so many of us believe is bad for the Senate, and bad for America.

But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option. Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances.

[...]

Either of these options offers a path away from the precipice of the nuclear option. But if neither of these options is acceptable to you, let's vote. (emphasis mine)

I love this man!!! He's either suicidal or knows he has the vote...either way, he's not rolling over and playing dead. Go Harry! Go Harry! Go Harry! Go Harry!

Harry Reid had a reputation for not backing down from a fight even a fist fight in the old days. My guess is his view is put-up-or-shut-up and he'll show up no matter the expected outcome. Either way I don't see it as a potential suicide mission on his part. 2006 elections loom large and hubris (God, we already see too much of that) comes before the fall.

i'm shocked to see partisan Republicans making snide remarks about the Democratic leadership!

I particularly loved this line from Slarti:
"Representatives are supposed to represent their constituency, regardless of party."

You're actually trying to attach that to democratic senators after 2004's 51% strategy and the current practices of the administration. Do you have no shame? Or sense of humor? Or perspective?

"i'm shocked to see partisan Republicans making snide remarks about the Democratic leadership!"

Don't worry, they also make snide remarks about the Republican leadership, especially Frist. It's the Democrats who keep quiet about Frist's leadership skills.

How relevant is it how many Democrats are in the state of Wyoming vs the state of California, when it comes to the roll call?

That was not what was declared to be irrelevant, exactly. What was declared to be irrelevant was, "that Senators represent one party over the other".

That fact is not irrelevant in the real world, as those who live in that world or visit occasionally may ascertain.

As I've pointed out, that Senators represent one party over the other is irrelevant, even if true.

I can't imagine why you think it's either irrelevant or untrue, even given that the historical job of Senators is to represent the state rather than the people. It certainly makes a difference to the Senators. In any case, for the record -- and assuming that in split states we can split the population equally -- the breakdown by population is R - 144,765,157, D-148,026,027. A small difference, to be sure, but still there.

Representatives, however, you're going to have to actually count, and then find out what percentage of votes each got, and then come to some conclusion. Even then, Representatives are supposed to represent their constituency, regardless of party.

You don't even have to make it that complicated. For every Representative, found out what party they belong to and how many people live in their district. Doesn't matter who voted for whom within the district, only that more people live in the districts represented by Ds than in those represented by Rs.

In both cases, this goes a long way towards disproving blogbudsman's point about "the American people" believing in his admittedly caricatured concept of the party. That party represents more actual, voting human beings in both houses of Congress.

A larger, more salient, more accurate and more supportable point would be that the vote was very, very, very close to 50%, popularity-wise . . .

Which is exactly what I said. When, for all practical purposes, 50% of the population votes for a political party, the fact that it has fewer seats in Congress, even when it represents more people, makes it the "minority party" -- and particularly the way he's portraying it here -- true only in a hair-splittingly literal sense.

Where's the comity?

I'm happy, ya'll are happy. Come on! Let's grab the sheet music for Kumbaya and put on a show!

Let's grab the sheet music for Kumbaya and put on a show!

So long as I get to be Mickey Rooney. ;-p

[Must resist Judy Garland joke]

Emmmmm.

OK.

[Must resist Judy Garland joke]

That's a good Single Malt Scotch! You can go out and play now. ;-p

You're actually trying to attach that to democratic senators after 2004's 51% strategy and the current practices of the administration. Do you have no shame? Or sense of humor? Or perspective?

I am, admittedly, lacking in whatever caused you to go off on me like that. I'm not looking for that to change anytime soon.

That fact is not irrelevant in the real world, as those who live in that world or visit occasionally may ascertain.

It's true! Just ask Doctor Science!

Doesn't matter who voted for whom within the district, only that more people live in the districts represented by Ds than in those represented by Rs.

Even this has not been shown to be true, as far as I'm concerned. Are you saying Democrats have bigger districts than Republicans?

true only in a hair-splittingly literal sense.

Yes, I'll agree to that. But I think that's where I started.

on the nuclear option: I see one plausible scenario in which we have the votes, but really just one:

44 dems
Jeffords
McCain
Chafee
Snowe
Collins
Warner
Hagel

But I really don't see Smith, Murkowski, Specter, or really anyone else breaking ranks, and Hagel, Warner, and Collins are all pretty big question marks. If a single one of them votes with the party line, we lose.

That said--if Frist had the votes he'd have done it already, right? I suspect that he may have them in the end, but he doesn't KNOW he has them right now, and once again Reid is asking him to do so something--just get it over with already--that he is betting Frist can't actually do.

I like Harry, though I still prefer Dick.

I like you too Katherine.

What about Tom?

Slarti,
Did I go off on you? Damn this internet and it's hair trigger.
So it comes down to:
Democrats should realize they have republicans in their districts and work to represent all of their constituents and...
Republicans should get a pass because, afterall they have a simple majority.

I know you would never admit the above exactly but in practice you say it nearly all the time so I gotta say...
How convenient.

I know you would never admit the above exactly but in practice you say it nearly all the time so I gotta say... How convenient.

That was special, carsick, in a delusionally telepathic sort of way. Any remarks addressed to what I actually said, on the other hand, will be welcome.

Here's the thing Slarti: the Senate Republicans have no MORAL claim on "majority rule". They do not, in fact, represent the majority of the people. This has been shown definitively, whether you do it according to state populations or actual votes cast in the last three Senate elections.

As someone who our Constitution systematically disenfranchises--in the electoral college, the Senate, the amendment process, AND the House--I get pretty sick of hearing pure-democracy arguments from people who hold power due a combination of the luck of rural/small state overrepresentation & a corrupt redistricting process; who don't allow up or down votes on anything that Tom DeLay, Dennis Hastert, George W. Bush and Bill Frist oppose--that's 4 people, not 40, in case you're counting--and if it does get an up or down vote it's stripped out secretly in conference; who use the same corruption of the conference committees to sneak in meanspirited, corrupt, unpopular provisions into appropriations bills so that Congress never even reads them let alone debates them; and who generally act as much like members of the Politburo or the Party Central Committee as it is possible to do in our system.

If Tom DeLay and Bill Frist are motivated by the conviction are violating the spirit of the Constitution and the will of the majority of the American people, I'm the Queen of England.

Durbin of course. Cheney can go...etc.

I thought Tom was a nice guy who had absolutely no business as majority leader.

argh...isn't someone gonna serve up the obvious punchline here?

tom, dick, harry...?

work with me people!

just kidding...gotta scoot...

Edward,
Where have you been? All Tom, Dick and Harry references have been changed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John references. I think the change was made when Ashcroft was still serving.

or actual votes cast in the last three Senate elections

Again, why this fixation on the Senate?

Edward--I got the joke, I just thought I'd answer seriously too.

I didn't notice it at the time but there was actually a point when the three most powerful Dems in Congress were Tom, Dick (Gephardt) and Harry.

Slarti--three reasons: because unlike the House there are actual some competitive elections in the Senate, because a lot of us have the nuclear option on the brain, and because it's a much bigger pain to do the equivalent math for the House.

and about the filibuster: since when is Princeton a hotbed of liberalism and since when are campus activists this clever & effective?

They've kept up their filibuster for over two weeks, and now they're taking it to DC.

When I was an undergrad people used to have "knit-ins" to protest sweatshops and a candlelight vigil about every ten days. Which drew an average of about 30 people. Not impressive.

Ah, I thought it had something to do with majority rule.

I think I'm going to do that equivalent math, tonight. All the data's out there on the Internets, after all. Just for the heck of it, because that's the kind of guy I am.

Katherine--

When I used to TA at Princeton, our joke about the undergrads was that Princeton is a hotbed of social rest.

BTW, I'm especially bitter this week because the gang of four--DeLay, Hastert, Frist and Bush--have decided to hollow out political asylum with a bill that:
--the relevant committee never held hearings on
--was barely debated in the House and never really debated in the Senate
--was never subject to amendment
--never passed the Senate
--never could passed the Senate in its current form.

The conference committee has inserted this bill into the Emergency Supplemental Funding Bill for the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. (It's the 1268 that crionna referred to in the emergency supplemental--it's part of the REAL ID Act, better known for its useless-and-neeedlessly-restrictive-but-less-evil drivers license provisions). It is going to pass. The Democrats will not filibuster money for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is going to cause legitimate asylum seekers to be deported and my job next year is such that I am going to personally witness that and possibly have to take part.

The same conference committee is expected to delete the Darfur Accountability Act from the same bill.

They represent only themselves. They serve only their own and each other's power.

Slarti, I've got a good headstart on the math if you want to forego it. I'm using the official list of House members by state and the Census tables for the populations of districts in the 108th Congress.

The conference committee has inserted this bill into the Emergency Supplemental Funding Bill for the War in Iraq and Afghanistan

they also inserted the "no judicial review" thing for that border fence near San Diego.

"Why Reid said what he did is totally overshadowed by the fact that he called the President to apologize."

Edward if I called you an idiot I'm pretty sure you would feel differently no matter how much I might apologize.

Phil,

"Tinker, here's a good compare-and-contrast between how Reid acted after publicly calling the President a "loser," and how the Vice-President acted after telling a sitting Senator, on the Senate floor, to "go fuck himself." "

That's a poor comparison. Cheney wasn't giving a speech and saying it to everyone in the audience.

I get called an idiot all the time!


But no one calls and apologize. ):

But no one calls and apologize.

I tried, but that dang restraining order and all...

"That said--if Frist had the votes he'd have done it already, right?"

The Senate works in mysterious ways, and matters of timing, agenda, deal-making and negotiations have usually been opaque to me.

If Frist does indeed have the votes, then Reid will show his stuff after a confirmation. If it is all possible, no matter the cost, Reid needs to make the nuclear option prohibitively expensive. So far all he has done is make threats.

"The Democrats will not filibuster money for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan."

If not, then I suggest the Democrats pack their bags and go home to their states and do two years of campaigning and PR and party building. They have given too much legitimacy to this regime already.

Frist has not brought it up for a vote
Because
#1. Exhaust all options
#2. Make Dems look obstructionist
#3. Heat up Conservative Base
#4. set field for supreme picks


Filibustering appellate nominess for 3-5 years is a long time to wait... base not happy..

Tinker: If that c-and-c doesn't work for you, think back to when Dick Armey called Barney Frank "Barney Fag." Or, more recently, when the soon-to-be-President called a reporter a "major league asshole" over an open mic. Whether they (Bush and Cheney) thought these comments were going to private is irrelevant; they weren't, and all they did was smirk about them.

BTW, everyone, here's one you won't see me say often, but I was wrong. Using the crude analysis method above -- comparing the population figures following the most recent census for Congressional districts with the current House member list, including nonvoting delegates -- I come up with:

Democrats -- 131,191,446
Republicans -- 154,513,530

So, that's that.

I am serious. No partial shutdown, no exceptions, if Frist and co use the nuclear weapon Democratic Senators should take the floor in permanent filibuster mode, and never yield it voluntarily. Let us put on a show.

Or, if the Senate has become a purely majoritarian institution, the Republicans have the votes to pass what they will, and Democratic Senators are unnecessary and superfluous. They should walk out and not come back.

W?ont happen Bob.. remember Gingrich?

I am serious. No partial shutdown, no exceptions, if Frist and co use the nuclear weapon Democratic Senators should take the floor in permanent filibuster mode, and never yield it voluntarily. Let us put on a show.

Actually, that's been my solution along. Frist should simply remove the current "Gentlemen's filibuster" nonsense and if the minority wants to filibuster a judge have at it. CSPAN should be hoot watching a real filibuster.

Edward if I called you an idiot I'm pretty sure you would feel differently no matter how much I might apologize.

Not at all. I've been called much worse and usually my first response is to give the person calling me such a moment's consideration. If I decide they're full of it, I'll tell them so, but I don't take a name seriously. My feelings might be hurt if I think they mean it, but an apology would definitely make me feel better.

Frist should simply remove the current "Gentlemen's filibuster" nonsense and if the minority wants to filibuster a judge have at it. CSPAN should be hoot watching a real filibuster.

I'd go for that.

"W?ont happen Bob.. remember Gingrich"

What am I supposed to remember? The Democratic takeover of Congress and the election of Al Gore? You are right, I forgot.

You are correct, it won't happen. Nothing much will actually happen except that some wingnut judges are going to be confirmed to lifetime positions. And people who actually measure results by, well, results will look to the party that gets things done. But then I am not so impressed with Pelosi and Reid.

"Where have you been? All Tom, Dick and Harry references have been changed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John references."

Including the racy 'Tom dicking Harry' ones? 'Matthew marking Luke' doesn't have the same ring to it. 'Joshua judges Ruth' is still cool, though.

Phil,

It seems your okay with, "since the other side does it that makes it okay."

The point was leadership. Intentionally calling someone an idiot while giving a speech makes a poor leader.

Expressing your feelings and not knowing that you are being overheard is a completely different issue in my book.

But, hey if that's the kind of leaders the Dem's want I'm looking forward to the 2008 election. With losers like Bush compared to Reid it should go well for the Republicans. ; -)

I agree with both Mcmanus and Macallan and cue the bagpipes. Slim Pickens riding the bomb down. I like.

Tinker, here's the thing. When everyone is deadly serios, you are merely deadly. When everyone is kind of locker-room, towel-snapping light-hearted, you're still serious.

So lighten up. Or at least modulate. Or be snarky and funny like Macallan, who of course is evil to the core, but is snarky and funny anyway!

I like Reid. The personality of an accountant but he has a Golden Gloves past. Like Pat O'Brien or Spencer Tracy turning the collar around to slap some sense into Leo Gorcey and Mickey Rooney.

That's a joke, Tinker.

It seems your okay with, "since the other side does it that makes it okay."

Mindreading foul.

No, the point is not that both sides do it, but how they react when called on it. Reid realized right away that he'd effed up, and called the President's closest advisor to apologize. Cheney acted like a big dumb bully who was proud of his stupidity. Only one of those two things is an appropriate reaction from a grown man who purports to be an important person in the Federal government.

Expressing your feelings and not knowing that you are being overheard is a completely different issue in my book.

Oh, indeed. It lets on what kind of person you really are, how you behave when you think nobody's paying attention.

But, hey if that's the kind of leaders the Dem's want I'm looking forward to the 2008 election.

Lemme let you in on a little secret, since you're about to make the same mistake as a lot of longtime posters have when talking to me: I have, in the past, voted for Republicans and Democrats in probably roughly equal proportions when one takes into account local, state and national races. So, in the abstract, I don't care what kind of leaders the Democrats want, as this isn't a partisan issue for me.

However -- and this is a big however -- the Republicans have lost my vote for the foreseeable future, until they stop acting like swaggering, juvenile majoritarians, until they renounce this fruitless alliance with the most retrograde, anti-intellectual, freakish wing of the so-called religious right, and until they stop being such hypocrites about the things they used to stand up for, like real federalism and the wrongness of unfunded mandates. (The latter two of which are about to bite them in their collective asses, as states are already rebelling over NCLB, and are about to do the same over Real ID.)

Phil,

"Oh, indeed. It lets on what kind of person you really are, how you behave when you think nobody's paying attention."

You might find this hard to believe, but it is true of even myself that I say things to my friends and close work associates that I don't say to others.

John,

Sorry I thought Edward was serious when he was saying that he liked Reid.

BTW, everyone, here's one you won't see me say often, but I was wrong. Using the crude analysis method above -- comparing the population figures following the most recent census for Congressional districts with the current House member list, including nonvoting delegates -- I come up with:

Democrats -- 131,191,446
Republicans -- 154,513,530

So, that's that.

Major props, Phil, for doing the drudgework, and even more, for making it public.

That said, I don't think it means all that much because each Representative represents his entire constituency. Congresscritters always have to be careful not to piss off too many of the voting public.

Tinker -
It's a simple question. If you were the boss, and you said something insulting about someone to a "friend or close work associate" and then found out that it had been broadcast accidentally over the office intercom, what would you do? Would you smirk and say nothing, letting the crude insult burnish your carefully-fostered tough-guy image, or would you apologize?

slarti -
But what about the rise of so-called "safe" districts? I'm not disagreeing with your main point, but I think you'll agree that the trend toward invulnerable incumbents and permanent marginalization of minoroties of both parties within both states and districts is alarming.

Oh, for god's sake, "minoroties?" I'm going to bed.

When I used to TA at Princeton, our joke about the undergrads was that Princeton is a hotbed of social rest.

When I was an undergrad at Princeton, I can assure you that "rest" was not part of our social lexicon ;)

[And I'll spare you the reciprocating jokes about the TAs...]

"That said, I don't think it means all that much because each Representative represents his entire constituency. Congresscritters always have to be careful not to piss off too many of the voting public."

This is really touchingly naive.

Have you not read the re-elect statistics?

Of course, my Congressman--who I actually really like--gets no say at all in writing legislation either, because again, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, George W. Bush & their closest buddies and contributors have complete control over which legislation passes.

This is really touchingly naive.

Have you not read the re-elect statistics?

Thanks for the condescension, Katherine, but yes, I'm well aware of them. Are you claiming they're not a result of representatives catering to their constituency?

And no, it doesn't help that the constituency is more or less hand-picked for the representative in question. Still, I'm gratified that I've touched you in some way, even if it was only through display of naïveté.

Congressional districting cuts both ways. Say, have you checked out Corrine Brown's district, lately? I'd be quite happy if everyone would adopt sane districting practices, Katherine. Probably this, too, is touchingly naïve of me.

I'd be quite happy if everyone would adopt sane districting practices, Katherine.

Give me the back of a napkin, a pencil, a couple of beers and about 10 minutes, and I'll draft you a districting process that's orders of magnitude better than the one we have right now.

...ok, so could anyone. I just want a couple of beers ;)

Who doesn't, Anarch? And, who couldn't?

For a paltry few million dollars, I could design a bulletproof redistricting algorithm. Wait...scratch that. I'd want at least fifty mill. Fifty mill might be serious enough money.

Yes, I am claiming that. Four incumbents lost their seats. Four. It never used to be like this. They didn't magically get better at representing us. Quite the opposite.

Believe me, I don't think people like Cynthia McKinney and Corinne Brown and Jim Moran are credits to redistricting either...For some reason the Mass. delegation's pretty good overall; I think it's because the primaries for these seats are brutal, but once your in you're in for life. New York is all over the place.

Further, it's hard for them to cater to their constituents when legislation is written in secret party meetings, is not debated on the House and Senate floor, & barely receives any press coverage. How many people do you think have even heard of the REAL ID Act (which cleared the Senate today)? Before answering keep in mind that the last election 33% of the country knew which party controlled Congress.

The House is exactly what James Madison was afraid of in Federalist #10. Exactly. And the Senate may be on its way. There's not a f***ing thing I can do about it but let's not make an episode of Schoolhouse Rock about it. This is not how democracy is supposed to work.

*a scene*

Homer: Aw, twenty dollars! I wanted a peanut!
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
Homer: Woo-hoo!

For a paltry few million dollars, I could design a bulletproof redistricting algorithm. Wait...scratch that. I'd want at least fifty mill. Fifty mill might be serious enough money.

In the spirit of the above, screw the two beers. Make it a hundred mil so we can split it!

One last thing: I've found very few conservative Republicans willing to admit that Tom DeLay represents them in any way, including most of the posters on this site. So, to say that, and turn around and argue that he represents the will of the American electorate, seems more than a little contradictory.

I can't change it and I suppose they must be doing some things you like, but this is the wrong day to defend them to me.

The bill including the immigration provisions passed the Senate 100-0 by the way. For most of us it will mean pain-in-the-a** lines the next time we renew our licenses.

These corrupt, secret deals in conference committees--it's the exact same process that almost got rendition legalized last year. I suppose I should be grateful that they didn't succeed that time, but hey, there's always next year. There is a far better chance of another provision buried in another must-pass law that the Senate rejects, the House accepts without debate or a chance at amendment, and the conference committee puts in anyway, then there is that Markey's or Leahy's bill will ever even make it out of committee.

Heh, Jim Moran was going to be my districting Democrats-are-just-as-bad example too, Katherine. I live in his district.

BTW, why does this keep happening. I know all administrations engage in propaganda, but the others are rarely this damned clumsy about it.

this is the wrong day to defend them to me

Who's defending? That I think some idea tossed out in this thread is false does not imply...well, any other point of view you might want to assign to me, sans evidence. I know we don't converse much here, Katherine, but if you've been paying attention at all, you can't have missed the previous couple of dozen times I've pointed this out.

Looks like "The Reluctant Minority" wasn't so reluctant after all... and that they are more of a minority than we even thought.

Looks like some Dem's cheated a bit in Wisconsin.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/may05/324933.asp


Katherine,

"secret party meetings"

How secret can they really be? You obviously know about them.


Talk about sore losers. This site is just full of 'em. If I didn't know better I would think the Democrats won the election and they Republican's are refusing to do what they say.

If I didn't know better I would think the Democrats won the election and they Republican's are refusing to do what they say.

Tinker...consider using a mirror. You'll be amazed, I assure you.

Reid said what most liberals on Capitol Hill were thinking (or saying behind closed doors), and it did neither Reid nor the liberals credit. Reid also made a fool of himself when he went on the attack against Clarence Thomas. Softspoken or not, he's used poor judgment and he reinforces the image of the Democrats as the Party of No. As I recall, Daschle wasn't a loud rabblerouser either, but his illiberal obstructionism caught up to him. Like Daschle, Reid also hails from a red state. Too bad.

This is satire of course,meant to stir up a few provocative responses. The alternative would be to consider Edwards mental condition which I'm sure isn't necessary.

Reid said what most liberals on Capitol Hill were thinking (or saying behind closed doors), and it did neither Reid nor the liberals credit.

Reid apologized. More than that, Reid personally called the President and apologized. Did Cheney apologize for using the F word on the Senate floor? Come on...who is doing their party discredit?

This is satire of course,meant to stir up a few provocative responses.

Close...but keep guessing. ;-)

Edward,

Just heard Reid on the radio. It wasn't live. He really isn't sorry at all for his comments. To sum it up he just wishes he would have used a word other than looser.

I'm just glad Reid's on the losing side. I think he'll do a great job at keeping it there.


Just heard Reid on the radio. It wasn't live. He really isn't sorry at all for his comments. To sum it up he just wishes he would have used a word other than looser.

Oh, so the GOP demands not just the trappings of civility, but actual loyalty from the opposition? This desire to have the Dems resign themselves to minority status is worse than I thought.

Reid doesn't like Bush. This is news to you?

"Reid doesn't like Bush. This is news to you?"

Nope! Just find it odd that you admire that kind of leadership.

If he really felt that way there was no reason to apologize. Now he comes off looking like he's talking out both sides of his face.

Well, I guess he doens't look like it. He's doing it.

Tinker:

"secret party meetings" Katherine knows about.

Is this like suppressed news by the MSM you know about?

johnt: I was going to respond, but you already know what I'm thinking, don't you, you mini-me, you.


Nope! Just find it odd that you admire that kind of leadership.

How do you feel about Tom DeLay?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad